[netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

On 6/14/2024 4:34 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:32 AM Kent Watsen <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Dear WG,
>
>     This adoption call was unsuccessful.
>
>     There is obviously a lot of interest, but the solution doesn’t
>     seem adequate, given the comments made on the list. Not to
>     disparage the effort, but the problem is rather intractable!
>
>     Andy mentioned that an Interim may be needed, which seems right
>     (+1 if you agree), but I wonder if there isn’t more that can be
>     done in preparation first.  Specifically, as this effort
>     challenges fundamentals, it would help to clarify the motivation
>     and expected outcomes.
>
>
> +1 to a better functional specification
An interim for which content?
We started with an adoption call on notif-yang-04 and it seems that 
discussion went in all directions. From the below message
     - new fields in notification header
     - binary encoding

Maybe we should focus just on notif-yang issue, to start with?

Regards, Benoit
> IMO there are no implementation problems caused by the RFC 5277 XSD 
> for the notification element.
> YANG is incapable of validating this element, but it is a trivial 
> structure, easy to validate.
>
> It is not clear to me that any new fields are needed in the 
> notification header.
> The NETCONF WG discussed multiple timestamps pre-5277 and decided 
> against it.
> Same for 'sequence-id'. IMO these are OK for YANG Push augments.
>
> I supported this draft as a way to get 2 SID assignments.
>
> IMO the NETCONF WG needs to make Binary YANG Push a top priority.
> This needs to be protocol-independent as possible (not UDP-specific).
> I think YANG Push can be simplified and improved. (But not in this WG)
>
>
>     One high-level question I have, is there anything wrong with the
>     “notification” statement in RFC 7950?  That is, is this at all a
>     YANG-next issue for the NETMOD WG, or is to purely NETCONF WG issue?
>
>     Kent
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>     > On Apr 6, 2024, at 6:14 PM, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     >
>     > NETCONF WG,
>     >
>     > This message starts a two week poll on adopting the following
>     document:
>     >
>     >       YANG model for NETCONF Event Notifications
>     >
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang-04
>     >
>     > The poll ends April 20.
>     >
>     > Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support” or "no/do
>     not support".  If indicating no, please state your reservations
>     with the document.  If yes, please also feel free to provide
>     comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG
>     document.
>     >
>     > No IPR is known for this document:
>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/oQVZ6Pf_novNfMB4RsnDxQibHpM/
>     >
>     > PS: this document received strong support before, being very
>     focused, providing just a module enabling validation of YANG
>     “notification” messages.
>     >
>     > Kent and Per (as co-chairs)
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > netconf mailing list
>     > [e-mail]
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     netconf mailing list -- [e-mail]
>     To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail]